Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

This almost sounds like religious rhetoric...I'm on your side, but let's just leave religion out of it. Makes our side look like we're trying to attack religion, which we're not.

No idea what you're talking about. Religion had nothing to do with my post.

And FWIW I have no problem bringing religion into a debate, as long as it's clearly labeled and taken for what it's worth. I'm not a fan of religion masquerading as social science but if someone says "Because of my faith I have to vote this way," at least I understand that. The OP is an excellent example of religion masquerading as something else, which here was distaste for BA's decision to speak about his personal views.

The problem wasn't BA, the problem was the views, but the OP didn't concede that until much later in the thread, and it wasn't until later than *that* that he finally got around to admitting it's all because of religion.

Just say up front "This is my faith and that's why I oppose so-and-so," but don't hide behind weak digs at BA or absurd claims about science. Call it what it is: Faith-based bigotry.

Festivus

His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.

No idea what you're talking about. Religion had nothing to do with my post.

And FWIW I have no problem bringing religion into a debate, as long as it's clearly labeled and taken for what it's worth. I'm not a fan of religion masquerading as social science but if someone says "Because of my faith I have to vote this way," at least I understand that. The OP is an excellent example of religion masquerading as something else, which here was distaste for BA's decision to speak about his personal views.

The problem wasn't BA, the problem was the views, but the OP didn't concede that until much later in the thread, and it wasn't until later than *that* that he finally got around to admitting it's all because of religion.

Just say up front "This is my faith and that's why I oppose so-and-so," but don't hide behind weak digs at BA or absurd claims about science. Call it what it is: Faith-based bigotry.

Help me out here so we can move past name calling.

How is a religion being bigoted by saying, we think God made man and women to be partners and it's unnatural for man and man or women and women to be together?

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

No idea what you're talking about. Religion had nothing to do with my post.

And FWIW I have no problem bringing religion into a debate, as long as it's clearly labeled and taken for what it's worth. I'm not a fan of religion masquerading as social science but if someone says "Because of my faith I have to vote this way," at least I understand that. The OP is an excellent example of religion masquerading as something else, which here was distaste for BA's decision to speak about his personal views.

The problem wasn't BA, the problem was the views, but the OP didn't concede that until much later in the thread, and it wasn't until later than *that* that he finally got around to admitting it's all because of religion.

Just say up front "This is my faith and that's why I oppose so-and-so," but don't hide behind weak digs at BA or absurd claims about science. Call it what it is: Faith-based bigotry.

So what your saying is that if i opened the thread by saying i have a problem with BA doing this because of my beliefs then everything would be ok? you are assuming that i was hiding that (or masquerading as you put it) , as though i have to explain why i have a problem with everything that i have a problem with up front, or other wise be deemed as hateful if my substantiating reasons come out later. if someone would have asked me why, i would have told them up front.

PUT RAY RICE & REX RYAN BACK ON THIS TEAM NOW!
(Notice: if this is now the future and this signature has become outdated because Ray Rice has signed with any of the following cities, Buf, Mia, Ne, Nyj, CIN, CLE, "PIT", Hou, Ind, Jac, Ten, Den, Kc, Oak, Sd, let the record show that I was never in favor of his release) This message has been brought to you in part by the R.R.R.R. Preservation Assoc.

Everything_Raven (and anyone else who is anti-same sex marriage on this thread), are you making these comments because you don't want BA making ANY comments about same sex marriage equality PERIOD, or are you making these comments because you don't want him doing this during Media Day?

Reading the blog post can be a bit misleading, but it mentions his ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl and go on Ellen to discuss same sex marriage rights. Not exactly like he's planning rallies and skipping practice, or causing a major distraction during Media Day.

So are we going to have a debate about the issue itself? Or just BA supporting the issue itself? Or BA supporting the issue in a proactive manner during SB week?

.
.
“When I think of a Baltimore Raven - we go in there, we take your lunch box, we take your sandwich, we take your juice box, we take your applesauce, and we take your spork and we break it. And we leave you with an empty lunch. That’s the Baltimore Raven way.” - Steve Smith Sr.

So what your saying is that if i opened the thread by saying i have a problem with BA doing this because of my beliefs then everything would be ok? you are assuming that i was hiding that (or masquerading as you put it) , as though i have to explain why i have a problem with everything that i have a problem with up front, or other wise be deemed as hateful if my substantiating reasons come out later. if someone would have asked me why, i would have told them up front.

You *were* hiding it.

You said you were tired of *him*. Not what he was saying, but him:

Originally Posted by Everything_Ravens

Really man give it a rest, this annoys me!

If anyone on this board is gay and offended by my stance on this I'm sorry but i just do not agree with this. He has been doing this stuff all year and now you're going to use the Super Bowl as a platform. i know everyone on the team doesn't agree with this.

This is the kind of thing you do on your free time not as a representative of the ravens!

Then after a while you let us know you didn't approve of gay marriage.

Then you started in with your "Think about the kids" nonsense, which is a complete fiction because children of homosexual parents grow up just fine.

Only after you were challenged on *that* did you say it's because of your faith.

I'm not saying "everything would have been ok" if you'd been honest up front.

But we could have skipped a bunch of steps in the thread that followed. And oh by the way, the team has no problem with him speaking out. As you perhaps remember.

Festivus

His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.

Then after a while you let us know you didn't approve of gay marriage.

Then you started in with your "Think about the kids" nonsense, which is a complete fiction because children of homosexual parents grow up just fine.

Only after you were challenged on *that* did you say it's because of your faith.

I'm not saying "everything would have been ok" if you'd been honest up front.

But we could have skipped a bunch of steps in the thread that followed. And oh by the way, the team has no problem with him speaking out. As you perhaps remember.

wow.... for all of the effort that u put in typing this up, i mean asterisk around the words and everything, you have still failed miserably to say anything of fact. you need to go back and read the thread, your account of things is off.

PUT RAY RICE & REX RYAN BACK ON THIS TEAM NOW!
(Notice: if this is now the future and this signature has become outdated because Ray Rice has signed with any of the following cities, Buf, Mia, Ne, Nyj, CIN, CLE, "PIT", Hou, Ind, Jac, Ten, Den, Kc, Oak, Sd, let the record show that I was never in favor of his release) This message has been brought to you in part by the R.R.R.R. Preservation Assoc.

Lets play a game, it will be like a scavenger hunt of sorts if you will. IM EXCITED!!

Ok..here are some things that you have just recently supposed i said and took place in this discussion.

1. You said you were tired of *him*. Not what he was saying, but him:
2.after you were challenged on *that* did you say it's because of your faith.
3. edit: You were the one saying someone should be quiet.
4.You *were* hiding it.

i want you to go back in this thread and find where i said any of this, or where the sequence of events happened as you said they did.

then in the bonus round you can double your points by proving
1.children of homosexual parents grow up just fine.
2.the team has no problem with him speaking out.

when your finished wrestling all that up bring it back to me and then we can talk. but until then i have nothing else to say to you

Last edited by Everything_Ravens; 01-24-2013 at 11:39 PM.

PUT RAY RICE & REX RYAN BACK ON THIS TEAM NOW!
(Notice: if this is now the future and this signature has become outdated because Ray Rice has signed with any of the following cities, Buf, Mia, Ne, Nyj, CIN, CLE, "PIT", Hou, Ind, Jac, Ten, Den, Kc, Oak, Sd, let the record show that I was never in favor of his release) This message has been brought to you in part by the R.R.R.R. Preservation Assoc.

I don't feel like reading all your posts to you, but I do owe you a source for the Ravens backing Ayanbadejo's decision to speak out. Here it is. I'm sure they also supported Birk speaking up, though as far as I recall they never said so.

You can read all your own posts again, if you want. I responded to them when & how I thought appropriate.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I just don't like to see bigotry go unchallenged; I'd hate to think the readers of our forum think poorly of the board because of an intolerant few.

Festivus

His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.

I just don't like to see bigotry go unchallenged; I'd hate to think the readers of our forum think poorly of the board because of an intolerant few.

no you rather them think its ok to call people bigots because of their religion. and you would rather them read a forum were people will lie and say that they said something that was never said, to try and support their own argument.

0x2=0

Good Night to all

PUT RAY RICE & REX RYAN BACK ON THIS TEAM NOW!
(Notice: if this is now the future and this signature has become outdated because Ray Rice has signed with any of the following cities, Buf, Mia, Ne, Nyj, CIN, CLE, "PIT", Hou, Ind, Jac, Ten, Den, Kc, Oak, Sd, let the record show that I was never in favor of his release) This message has been brought to you in part by the R.R.R.R. Preservation Assoc.

To be clear, no one believes that having faith makes you a bigot. Or even believing that a religious partnership is the exclusive domain of heterosexual couples.

Festivus and I, (if I can speak for him) are stating that a desire to impose that religious exclusivity to the secular concept of LEGAL marriage is a bigoted practice.

Which is why I objected to the idea that both sides are equally intolerant. On one side of the coin are people like Festivus and I who want equal rights for all, AS WELL AS religious folks like my sisters for example, who also want equal legal rights for homosexuals. On the other side are people who don't want that legal equality. That those people are statistically overwhelmingly people of faith is irrelevant to why I believe their view is bigotry.

The desire to deny equal legal rights to all people is bigotry, the motivation behind that desire is merely a distraction to that discussion. (A distraction I admit I am guilty of engaging in too. I'm not trying to declare myself above anyone here.)

I envy people who have faith. I wish I could take comfort in a higher power sometimes. But even if I could, that would not change my desire to see all people being treated equally under the law.

My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron

So I should mark you down as a woman beater? Because the Bible says that's cool too.
.

Wrong. I'm sure that was sarcasm or one of your famous tongue-in-cheek comments HR.

The Bible does not say that.

The Pauline epistles make it clear that men should lead the church and not be under the authority of women just as the men should lead the family as God created man first and just as Christ founded the church but no where does it say it's cool to beat women. The Bible makes it clear to take care of the widows (James 1:27, 1 Timothy 5:3-4) , not beat them.

In fact, Jesus took care of his women folk and loved Mary Magdeline and his mother and
told his brother to take care of Mary when he died.

In fact, a woman, Mary Magdeline, was the first to see the resurrected Christ.

In fact, the 4 daughters of Phillip had the spiritual gift of prophesizing (Acts).

In fact, thousands if not millions of Christian women were martyed by the Romans and subject
to rape via beastality, burning and a woman drowned her 3 daughters and herself before the
Romans grabbed them for torture.

In fact, the first convert in Europe was a woman.

In fact, many if not most inmates in America's prisons never had a father to lead the
family and it's the break down of the American family.

From the fatherless generation. This is what God doesn't want happening to his church:

I have a colleague who *claims* to be a big time femi-nazi/bull-dyke/ubber-liberal type woman. Truth is, she's moderate just like 99% of people are; she just happens to lean a little to the left.

She and I have discussed this numerous times since I'm a conservative/christian/right-wing wacko. The major sticking point is that marriage is the union of man and woman before God. Now if we look at the marriage vows, "What God has brought together, let no man tear asunder", we see my favorite argument tool. A loophole. Like many, many, many, etc... other things, government has screwed this up. Man and woman wanna go get hitched, ride down to the court house for a civil union. Woman and woman wanna get together, ride down to the court house for a civil union. As a conservative I don't want the government telling me how I should live. Everybody else should have the same rights.

Strike the word marriage from legal use. That's fair for everyone.

Now for the original issue of this thread. If BA says something about it in an interview, that's fine. If he does something during the game to detract from the biggest sporting event of the year, yeah I have some problems.

"A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
ProFootballMock

Minus the salty language in your opening, I agree wholeheartedly ( including your take on BA's campaign) and I'm about as liberal as one can get on the gay rights issue. Clearly this board has reached consensus, someone alert congress and let's just get this done and put to bed forever so we can focus on what matters: blaming each other for every other problem in the history of this country!

My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron

I agree with darb to a point...my sticking point is that legally, no one's marriage is recognized as "Catholic marriage", "Christian marriage", "Jewish marriage", "Muslim marriage", etc. It's just "married". So, by trying to squeeze in "well, Catholic/Christian marriage laws say..." that is going against the separation of church and state. Hell, my wife and I are married, but not religious. We did not have a religious ceremony. Can we still call that a marriage, since it didn't take place with a church's blessing?

So, either go all or none with that. Make it so it's defined by religion, ie a "Catholic marriage" is differently marked than a "Civil Marriage", or stop calling it married altogether in the eyes of the law and just call it "civil union" or whatever flavor it is.

Really, knowing government, the path of simplest action is to grant same sex couples the title "married" when it comes to any couple status, and not try to rewrite all sorts of codes and such. That's why any enactment of legislation needs to have a stipulation that no church will be FORCED to honor a same sex marriage if that church does not believe in it. There, you HAVE your religious protection without forcing it on others.

PS - As for BA and Birk, they have both acknowledged their opposing views...guess how much it affects them working together? ZERO! Message from the team is clear, they know they can't and won't tell their players to shut their mouth when it comes to issues that are passionate to them. Hell, Luke Scott was a birther and no one from the Orioles shut him up! They opted not to re-sign him, but that probably had most to do with his injury history.

.
.
“When I think of a Baltimore Raven - we go in there, we take your lunch box, we take your sandwich, we take your juice box, we take your applesauce, and we take your spork and we break it. And we leave you with an empty lunch. That’s the Baltimore Raven way.” - Steve Smith Sr.